United
States

The right to a public trial is not absolute. Openness may be
overridden by the motion of closure. Trials may be reasonably
regulated to avoid publicity that could prejudice a jury or harm the well-being of participants.
Closures are decided case-by-case by the judge basing on
substantial or legitimate public interest. Examples include organized crime
cases (overall security concerns), rape cases (decency concerns) and juvenile cases. "[1]

Trials may be closed at the behest of the government only if it
shows "an overriding interest based on findings that closure is
essential to preserve higher values and is narrowly tailored to
serve that interest." The accused may also request a closure of the
trial; in such a case, it must be demonstrated that "first, there
is a substantial probability that the defendant's right to a fair
trial will be prejudiced by publicity that closure would prevent,
and second, reasonable alternatives to closure cannot adequately
protect the defendant's fair trial rights.

Soviet
Union

In Soviet Union
the terms "open trial" (открытый процесс) and "public trial"
(публичный процесс) differed. The term "open trial" implied the
possibility for public to be present at the hearings. The term
"public trial" implied the purposeful presentation of the process
to wide public. Public trials were usually widely discussed in
media and hearings were often arranged in larger auditoria. While the Soviet public trials
are commonly associated with Stalin erashow
trials, such as Moscow Trials, nevertheless in Russian culture
the term "public trial" did not acquire negative connotations,
despite the apparent attributes of a show, primarily because the
publicity of any information in pre-glasnost era was severely limited by the
Soviet state. The term "show trial" corresponds to Russian
"показной процесс", (pokaznoy process).